Don Larsson: I appreciate the game you're playing with the term 'film noir', and much that you say. Permit me one last time to clarify what we now know about the scope and limits of defining terms (coincident with much that you say), and hence to reaffirm the unique achievement (to date) of Damico's specification. Strictly speaking, a definition of term must give both the necessary and sufficient conditions of its application. As we now know, however, from the work of Quine and Wittgenstein in particular, no useful listing of necessary conditions can be given for any empirical predicate (i.e., things found in the world have no essences; as Wittgenstein put, any two things falling under an empirical term must bear a 'family resemblance' to one another, but that does not entail that all things falling under it have anything in common). It follows, therefore, that no definitions of empirically useful terms can be given, for no exhaustive listing of necessary conditions is possible. We are left then with the task of specifying SUFFICIENT conditions for their use as means toward whatever ends we can clearly foresee, and that implies that the conditions be TESTABLE as means to those ends. Damico, however unintentionally, got it right: his specification is listing of conditions which he believes to be SUFFICIENT to ensure the construction of a movie which would be 'film noir'; it is not, and is not meant to be, what can never be given, namely a listing of necessary conditions for a movie being 'film noir'. He has no interested therefore (and quite properly so) in ensuring that every movie which is 'film noir' conforms to his specification. Rather, he is concerned with exactly the opposite, namely to ensure that every movie which conforms to his specifications is 'film noir'! If he has managed to achieve that end, then he has provided something valuable, namely a tool for use by filmmakers who wish to construct films which are 'film noir'. It is therefore no counterexample to Damico's work to list movies which you or anyone else agree to be 'film noir' which do not conform to his specification. What would be a counterexample to his work, and a most interesting achievement, would be to find a movie which conforms to his specification, but which, by common consent, could not reasonably be construed as being 'film noir'! For then we would have discovered a limitation on the scope and limits of the proper use of the tool Damico has provided, and would then be a position to propose refinements of it to eliminate the imprecision. Conversely, of course, it would be equally interesting to construct a listing of SUFFICIENT conditions for movies being 'film noir' which is different from Damico's while being equally testable, but which encompasses a wider range of films we agree to be 'film noir'. My suggestions to you for amending Damico's specification to avoid (e.g.) the particularities of gender which he built into it was intended as an improvement in exactly this latter sense: the resulting specification would continue to encompass, as required, a proposed listing of SUFFICIENT (and hence testable) conditions for constructing movies which would be found unexceptionally to be 'film noir', but which encompasses a wider range of films which I think we would mutually agree to be 'film noir'. It is precisely because Damico's specification was intended to encompass SUFFICIENT conditions that it is testable, and hence useful. The problem with a listing such as your own, which encompass a set of features often found in movies we agree to be 'film noir', but which are also found in many movies which by common consent are not 'film noir' is that the listing is untestable. It is a measure of the lasting interest of Damico's work that, as a proposed listing of SUFFICIENT conditions for a movie being 'film noir', it was testable from the day he put it forward, unlike any other contribution to the discussion with which I am acquainted, before or since, and remains uncontroverted to this day. To my knowledge, no film conforming to his specifications(!) has failed to be 'film noir'. His proposal therefore remains, for me, a USEFUL contribution to the theory of genre design for filmmakers, and, sad to say, almost uniquely so. Again, thanks for initiating this discussion, and thereafter contributing to it, in the open and credible manner the subject deserves. Should you ever put in writing anything firm on the matter, I would be most interested in receiving a copy of it. Best wishes! Evan William Cameron Telephone: 416-736-5149 York University - CFT 216 (Film) Fax: 416-736-5710 4700 Keele Street E-mail: [log in to unmask] North York, Ontario Canada M3J 1P3 ---- To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]